• Home
  • Meetings
  • Events
  • Blog
  • E-Board
  • Around Boston
  • Join
Northeastern University's Film Enthusiasts Club
.

AJ Martin on Gods of Egypt

2/26/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
With the Oscars about to air, it seems nearly everyone is talking about whether or not minority groups are underrepresented in Hollywood. And while I’d rather not get into an overly political discussion about race, ethics and the film industry, I will say it does seem like non-white roles usually end up in the hands of white actors. Gods of Egypt falls perfectly into the category of “movies about non-white people that prominently feature white actors” and I found myself constantly reminded of that throughout my screening of the movie. The three lead male actors are from Australia, Denmark and Scotland, each meant to be playing an ancient Egyptian god or slave. And, because the movie was so uninspired and sloppy, I found my mind drifting to this fact every few seconds. Would the movie have been much better with Egyptian actors? No, that wouldn’t have changed the biggest issues the film has. However, Hollywood’s seemingly endless chain of pushing out non-white actors in roles they are meant to play was quite apparent as I watched this film.

All of this aside, the movie was still a poor attempt at creating a flashy and over-the-top action epic. The movie follows a slave named Bek (Brenton Thwaites of The Giver), who tries to help Egyptian god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau of Game of Thrones) regain the throne from the evil god Set (Gerard Butler of 300). Set means to use the best qualities of each of the gods to destroy the underworld and completely conquer death, becoming immortal and holding his place at the throne forever. As you can probably tell just by reading this description, there is little depth to be found here. The story is paper-thin, essentially a backdrop for lavish and extravagant action sequences.  

The action sequences, unfortunately, do not save the film from its barely existent story. While some the scenes of over-the-top swordplay and action are shot in an interesting (sometimes even witty) manner, the horrendous special effects make them almost unwatchable. The CGI is putrid, the kind of stuff I would expect to see out of an action film in 2006. Actually, this is not really fair to action films of 2006.  300, a film that Gods of Egypt seems to be trying to remind people of by casting Gerard Butler as an ancient warlord, had far better special effects than this film, and it came out almost a decade ago. When your spectacle action film that features many large creatures which can only be created with CGI doesn’t have great special effects, it feels as though you are watching a bunch of actors flailing at each other on a set with a bunch of green screens.

And that’s about all there is to discuss. This movie brings nothing to the table other than the promise of interesting and fun action sequences, and fails to deliver on that front. The only thing keeping the movie afloat is the banter between Bek and Horus, which occasionally results in some pretty fun dialogue. Unfortunately, their relationship doesn’t make up for the rest of the movies faults. The movie ends up being extremely lackluster, and not worth any audience member’s time.
​

Grade: C- ​​
0 Comments

Haley Emerson on Eddie the Eagle

2/26/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I have to preface this review by saying two things: I don’t care for sports, and I don’t care for so-called “feel good” movies.  Maybe that’s a little cynical, but it’s a fact that plays greatly into how I felt about​ Eddie the Eagle.  

Based on true events, the film tells the story of Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a unlikely member of the British ski jumping team at the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. Eddie’s story was overshadowed by that of the Jamaican bobsled team (Cool Runnings is great, can’t deny it), but it’s still a story worth telling.  Eddie’s lifelong dream was to be an Olympian - the sport was insignificant, it was the concept of being an Olympian that mattered. After trying and failing at a few sports, Eddie finally found his niche in skiing.  He was cut from the Olympic trials for the downhill team, which inspired him to take up jumping.  A perpetual underdog, Eddie (played by Taran Egerton, Kingsmen: The Secret Service) had more belief in himself than anyone else did, and maybe than he actually should’ve.  Throughout the film, Eddie was full of innocent hubris and determination, leading him to his reluctant mentor, Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman, X-Men franchise, Prisoners).  A drunken, washed up former Olympic ski jumper himself, Peary finds himself coaching Eddie to help him do the seemingly impossible: qualify for the 1988 Winter Olympics.  The two made an odd pair, but ultimately complemented each other: Peary had the flair and talent, while Eddie had the discipline that could’ve made Peary a legend.  The story told has a happy ending: Eddie made it to the Olympics and, although he was the most mediocre Olympian participating, he couldn’t have been happier.

Eddie the Eagle’s greatest strength was its two irresistibly likable leads.  Egerton is adorable, British, and portrays an underdog worth rooting for.  Though his performance is a little overdone in order to play down his genuine good looks and charm, Egerton’s character comes across as lovable and eccentric.  As Eddie’s coach, Jackman takes on the role of a bad boy former skier (a new archetype, perhaps?), who eventually uses his talent to make the dreams of his protégé come true. If you don’t at least kind of like Hugh Jackman, you probably don’t have a pulse, so he’s a perfect match to play opposite Egerton’s equally likeable character.

The film gave me a look into the sport of ski jumping, about which I know absolutely nothing.  From gratuitous crash sequences to the comparison of a successful jump to an orgasm, I certainly learned a lot.  Ski jumping is super dangerous, I actually don’t know why people choose to do it. Throughout much of the film, I was thinking, “is this guy crazy?” And the answer is: yes, in order to partake in this ridiculous sport, he probably is.  There were several cringe-worthy, cover-your-eyes-and-hope-he-lands-the-jump moments that made the viewing experience a little stressful, but ultimately added to the satisfaction when Eddie succeeded.

Before seeing it, this film was an underdog in my eyes that I wasn’t necessarily rooting for.  But I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked Eddie the Eagle.  Despite the fact that it was marketed as everything I don’t look for in a film, I found myself laughing out loud and genuinely enjoying the experience of watching Eddie the Eagle.  It was one of only a few films I consider a successfully “feel good” film.     

​
Grade: B+
​
0 Comments

Eric Tatar interviews Robert Eggers and Anya Taylor-Joy on The Witch

2/24/2016

0 Comments

 
I was able to ask a few questions to the director of The Witch, Robert Eggers, as well as the film’s lead actress, Anya Taylor-Joy, during a roundtable discussion at the Eliot Hotel last Thursday, and while the other two reporters alongside me had much more to say, I got the answers I was interested in, which you can find below. ​
Picture
Eric: Something I noticed about the film in the rest of the scenes that were outside the horror parts is that it seems kind of like a dramatic play. Knowing your background in Shakespeare, were you at all influenced by the play structure and theatre pieces?
​

Robert: You’re not the first person to ask that question, but very few have. It certainly was in my intention, so the films that I like, such as Bergman and Drier who are so close to my heart, are a big part of this film. Bergman comes from the theatre, so his films are very play-like, and most of Drier’s films, while he didn’t direct theatre, are adaptations of plays. So certainly there are these movements that feel like the best part of silent cinema since there’s non-diegetic sound and things are moving in a way that you could never do on a stage, and those parts are certainly what our DP Jarin [Blaschke] prefers, but there are these scenes that tend to play themselves out like a full on “scene”.

Picture
Anya: Sorry to jump on in, but thank you for asking that because, not from the play point of view but from the non-horror aspect, Ralph [Ineson], Kate [Dickie] and I would consistently be like, “So I know we’re making a horror movie…” but since we’re not on set seeing these horrible things, I mean, I went on set a few times just because I was curious, but we just felt like we were making this horrifying story of this family’s breakdown, due to isolation, fear, paranoia, all these things, that’s where we were emotionally.

Eric: You obviously put a ton of research, time and effort into making the movie; when you were making it were you ever afraid it would be marginalized as just a horror film, just another entry into that genre?

Robert: I mean, I hope it’s marginalized as a horror film because I wanted people to see it. I had such a hard time getting anyone to make any feature I had written and so it seemed to me in the climate at the time, and I think it’s still true now, it was going to be much easier for me to get a film financed and seen if I could make a personal film that was within a genre.

You can read Eric's full review of The Witch here.
0 Comments

Eric Tatar on The Witch

2/19/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Like the best directors in the horror genre, Robert Eggers made sure his debut was a great movie before concerning himself with making it scary. His exploration of how religion, isolation, and sexual repression intertwine when pushed to their limits feels out of place alongside films that emphasis scares over their characters; here the dread works itself out from the straining relationships of a displaced family.

That family, settling on a stretch of bare farmland after being banished from their New World town for unexplained reasons, typifies the fears of the 17th century settlers; as strangers in America, the only common link from their past lives in England becomes their faith. With five children and a poor harvest, however, the parents, played by Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie, have to contend with the fact that belief isn’t going to help them survive, and before they can reaffirm their values, some “thing” springs out of the woods encircling them and snatches their newborn. With his decision to show us the grisly fate of the child along with the mass of contorted flesh gnawing upon it, Eggers propels his story past the stumbling blocks that many other monster films struggle over; in addition to being immediately terrified, we know that there is an actual evil here. No skirting around bushes or strange noises; the witch is real and bloodthirsty.

After this intense introduction, Eggers uses his impeccable attention to detail, acquired through his past work as a production designer, to bring out the character of the family through a controlled atmosphere of constantly imminent betrayal, a wavering unity that his fearless cast takes full advantage of. Ineson’s William is obsessed with protecting his family to the point of delusion, running outside to angrily smash logs every time he loses a dispute in a kind of grizzled pout session, while his wife, a fearsomely severe creature that Dickie makes nearly as distressing to be around as the witch, prefers to throw accusations towards her children at the flip of a hat for a grasp at some resolution in her increasingly hostile homestead. Interfering with the strict narrative of moral worship they’ve spun their lives around are their two oldest children; Harvey Scrimshaw plays Caleb, a boy at the start of puberty whose maturation and subsequent newfound desires clash against his ingrained principles, conveying his inward confusion through a scrunched brow alongside eyes pleading for understanding, while Thomasin, whose flirtation between well-meaning innocence and playful roguishness Anya Taylor-Joy captures with a range of pleasant to devilish manners, threatens to upset their carefully laid balance as she finishes her growth into womanhood.

Eggers’ fascination with the time period and how this familial chemistry was born from it comes through in every aspect of the production. The bleak color grading compresses each prayer for absolution along with the wilting tracts of the farm, and his decision to solely use flowery Puritan dialogue, while initially distancing, compounds the parent’s piety as tensions intensify; they’re unable to lash out with slews of curses in fear of enraging God, leading to the captivating circumstances of kinsfolk disputing with Old English as possessed children reel in the background. That balance between moments of intense visual horror and dramatic confrontations, along with Eggers’ ability to maintain the air of desperation through both, gives The Witch its horrifying presence; rather than turning away for a second to hide from a monster slipping past, you’d have to shut your eyes for the film’s entirety to escape the fear permeating each precise step Eggers and his cast take.
​

Grade: B+
0 Comments

AJ Martin on Risen

2/19/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Watching this movie was a very odd experience, especially after having just recently seen Hail, Caesar! For those of you who don’t know, Hail, Caesar! was about the exploits of a studio manager as he tries his hardest to ensure that the motion pictures the studio he works for makes come out okay.  he main film that the studio is making is called Hail, Caesar!, an epic film about a Roman man who is tasked by Pontius Pilate to finding the body of the risen Jesus.  By the end of the film, the Roman realizes that Jesus is the son of God and seems to have converted to the Christian faith. Why for I bring this up? Because this is the exact plot of Risen.

Risen, just like the movie within Hail, Caesar!, is about the Roman man who is tasked with finding the body of the recently deceased son of God. Clavius (Joseph Fiennes) tries desperately to understand how the body of a man that was locked in a tomb escaped, slowly discovering that the man named Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) has risen from the grave. However, the story is told so drearily that it becomes hard to watch. And, unfortunately, the biggest problems with Risen are only compounded on when its plot reminds me of the much better Coen Brothers’ film that was released only a few weeks ago.  

The main issue of the movie is that the characters are extremely boring, about as fleshed out and interesting as a bunch of cardboard boxes full of styrofoam. The actors deliver their dialogue (which is almost solely expository) in such a dull and emotionless way that nothing they say has any weight. A story that is supposed to be Biblically epic turns out to be a dull mess when the characters it surrounds don’t even seem interested in what’s going on. This emotionlessness also makes it very difficult for the audience to accept supposed changes in relationships between characters or how characters see the world. Clavius’s change from disbelief to believing in Yeshua comes seemingly from nowhere, as Fiennes’s performance lacks the emotional weight to make the change seem profound. Clavius is supposed to be completely changed by his discovery of the resurrection, but he never seems to go through any changes as a character. The character at the end of the movie feels identical to the one we started with, and that lack of development makes the audience feel like nothing has happened in the story.

And, with the performances and writing making the movie feel sluggish, the end product is agonizingly boring. Monotony sets in pretty quickly, with no relief to be found at any point in the film. I found myself nodding off once or twice, only maintaining consciousness in the hope that something interesting would eventually happen. It didn’t. Thus, I ended up seeing one of the most boring movies I’ve seen in a long time.  And boredom is one of the worst sins a film can commit.

Grade:  D-   
0 Comments

Carter Sigl's Guide to AnimeLand - Genius Party

2/17/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Film at-a-glance:
Genre: Various, Surrealism 
Creators: Atsuko Fukushima, Shōji Kawamori, Shinji Kimura, Yoji Fukuyama, Hideki Futamura, Masaaki Yuasa, Shinichirō Watanabe
Studio: Studio 4°C
Length: 85 minutes
Year: 2007

I think that it’s probably inevitable that if you watch as many films as I do you’ll likely start to get tired of the same old same old. The familiar tropes, the repetitive action scenes and predictable plot twists as start to wear thin after a while. After a while, you start to crave something different. I think this is why so many film geeks and film critics begin to gravitate towards more experimental and surreal films over time. And although anime can fall prey to the fads of mass popularity as easily as any other medium, there are a few productions that satisfy that lust for weirdness, including Genius Party.

Genius Party is a production of Studio 4°C. It’s not a single film but rather an anthology of seven short films, each crafted by a different director with a completely different animation style. In this respect it’s quite similar to another collection of short films I’ve written about before: The Animatrix. In fact, Studio 4°C actually worked on The Animatrix. However, there’s one big difference between that anthology and Genius Party (other than the fact that the former work takes place in an already-existing fictional universe): the Studio gave the directors, writers, and animators complete creative freedom when making Genius Party. This result of this decision are some of the most surreal pieces of cinema I’ve ever seen. 

Exactly how surreal the shorts are varies significantly. For example, Shōji Kawamori’s incredibly colorful short Shanghai Dragon is about a young Chinese boy who picks up an alien artifact which crashes to Earth which can bring to life anything he draws with it. He then proceeds to use it to, with the help of two members of the galactic police force, to fight off an alien invasion of his home city using the power of his imagination. Yoji Fukuyama’s Doorbell is a horror story about a boy who is either slowing having his life replaced by a doppelganger of himself or who is slowly going completely insane (it is intentionally very ambiguous). And Atsuko Fukushima’s eponymous Genius Party seems to be about the life cycle of a bird-like creature on a planet straight out of Terry Gilliam’s acid-fueled dreams. I says ‘seems to be about’ since that particular short has no dialogue and could just as easily be an allegory for the political situation between Japan and China for all I know. But then on the other hand, the short by Shinichirō Watanabe (who I’ve covered several times before), Baby Blue, is a completely realistic romance story about two teenagers about to move away from each other.
​
So if you’re a fan of really surreal cinema you’ll love Genius Party. Alternatively, if you just want something really different from mainstream films or anime, than you should give Genius Party a shot. Just whatever you do, don’t watch it on drugs. This movie will do that for you.

This article is part of an ongoing series; recent entries have covered Psycho-Pass and Durarara!! Check back every Wednesday for a new article!

You can watch Genius Party here.

0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Where to Invade Next

2/14/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Michael Moore’s ideological crusade in this movie was to point out everything the United States is doing “wrong” by showing how well a random smattering of countries are doing by contrast. Moore travels to Italy, France, Tunisia, Slovenia, Portugal, and others, claiming to invade them in order to “take the things we need from them.” He juxtaposes narration lauding the US with footage disproving the validity of these compliments, such as of police brutality, poverty, dilapidated infrastructure, and discrimination. The movie had a lot of potential, but both its structure and its messages were disappointing. Frankly, Americans whining about how insecure they are about being American is becoming overdone and irritating.

This documentary felt more like a list than a movie. The countries Moore chose and the order in which he visited them seemed random, neither building on nor relating to each other. The escapades themselves were organically funny, relying more on people’s reactions to Moore than to Moore himself, which saved this critic from becoming especially impatient as the movie progressed. A generally comedic tone gave way to the movie’s more serious roots when Moore eventually visited the Berlin Wall and reminisced with an old friend about when the wall fell, but then the film seemed to return to its previous light-hearted, didactic nature and I found myself wondering where Moore was going with all of this. While his actual journey around the world might have been directionless, his film should not have been.

However, my biggest qualm with this movie is the extent to which Americans are demonized. Self-hating Americans and American-hating foreigners, hear me out: The United States is not perfect, but neither is any other country. Indeed, there are strategies that the US should at least consider adopting to combat its domestic problems, but the countries Moore advertises are also imperfect. In addition, it is not so easy for the United States to adopt some of the policies Moore praises because this is a large, populated country and consequently policies that work in smaller countries might be logistically inappropriate here. Many Americans also oppose certain policies, and whether the policy works or not, it cannot and should not be installed in a country whose majority is against it.

Moore speaks here as if the United States is the only country with lacking educational funding, racial tensions, and violent crime. America is not perfect, but it is likely not populated with hordes of apathetic sadists. Moore brags about other countries’ successes in social movements (i.e., women’s rights, racial equality, and students’ rights) as if people in other countries succeeded because they simply tried harder. His narration erroneously implies that protesters in America eventually shrugged and surrendered to the status quo due to fear, laziness, ignorance, and lack of leadership. Obstacles for social movements differ country by country, and it was pathetically self-hating on the part of Moore to dismiss Americans in such a way.

Moore’s theme that the United States should claim other countries’ ideas as its own was clever, as was the quip that America typically steals from others and then claims the stolen item as American. However, he also roundly dismissed Americans and claimed that the United States was founded on quasi-utopian ideals that are now embodied better by foreign countries. Each of these proclamations ignorantly lacks political, historical, and ideological nuance. Listing everything America does wrong doesn’t make Moore artistic or edgy, and it certainly doesn’t aid a country that needs real solutions rather than self-hating sensationalist journalism.

Where to Invade Next?​ If you must, invade this country. Solve problems here instead of comparing us to everyone else.
Grade: C-
0 Comments

Carter Sigl's Top Ten Films of 2015

2/14/2016

0 Comments

 

10. The Keeping Room

Picture
​When we think of war, certain familiar images always pop into our heads. Soldiers, generals, battles, gunfire… Rarely do we think about the people whom war affects most. Following a day in the life of three women in the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy, The Keeping Room is a damning portrayal of the consequences of war upon those least able to cope with it, particularly the plight of women in war. A stunningly dark and intense film, this one lingered in my mind long after the golden light of the projector had faded away.  

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Keeping Room here.

9. Spotlight

Picture
​Out of all the films on this list, Spotlight was the only one that I can’t say I enjoyed in the traditional sense. However, the story of this movie is an incredibly important one that needs to be told. As a millennial, I was too young to be exposed to this when it was occurring, but growing up I always just took it for granted that the Church is corrupt. But seeing it like this, through the eyes of the reporters as they discover every awful detail, really drove home for me how big a deal that it was and is. More filmmakers should be trying to make films as impacting as Spotlight. 

You can read Arjun Agarwal's full review of Spotlight here.

8. Mad Max: Fury Road

Picture
I must admit, I don’t adore this one as much as many other critics do. But the value of Mad Max: Fury Road is not really in the film itself. What’s more important is what it means for the genre as a whole. Most of us critics had essentially written off blockbuster action flicks as being incapable of possessing any artistic value, but George Miller proved us wrong. With fantastic acting, superb writing, amazing practical effects, and a (sort-of) feminist narrative, Fury Road has reminded us that the summer blockbuster can be more than the sum of its parts. 

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of Mad Max: Fury Road here.

7. DEATHGASM

Picture
DEATHGASM is one of the funniest movies I’ve seen in a long time. The story of a bunch of New Zealand metalheads who discover some actually satanic music which summons hordes of demons, this film runs on sheer unadulterated insanity. It is a movie that positively embraces and revels in its own silliness and manages to infect anyone who watches it. When I saw this at last year’s Boston Underground Film Festival the audience absolutely could not stop laughing at the complete absurdity on screen. It’s ridiculous, it’s hilarious, and it’s all-around awesome! And the title is in all caps because LOWER CASE IS FOR PUSSIES!!!

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of DEATHGASM here.

6. The Martian

Picture
​After decades away from the genre, Ridley Scott has finally returned to making science fiction films, and I’m very excited about that. His early sci-fi movies, particularly Alien and Blade Runner, are some of the best the genre has ever seen. And although The Martian is not quite the masterpiece that those are, it is one of the best science fiction films of the last decade. Anchored by Matt Damon’s acting ability (I don’t think I’ve ever liked him in anything thing as much as I did in this), this tense and surprisingly funny tale of a man stranded on Mars alternatively made me clutch my seat and laugh out loud. Plus, it’s probably the nerdiest movie ever made, which is a big plus for me obviously. 

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Martian here.

5. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

Picture
​I must admit, I missed this film on its original run, so I didn’t see it until NUFEC showed it at one of our meetings last year. Anyone who was there can attest to the raw emotional power of this movie. The first half is one of the funniest movies I saw all year, while the second half is absolutely heartbreaking. All three of the film's young actors gave astounding performances, and Jesse Andrews’ screenplay is enchanting. And Greg and Earl’s homemade parody short films are so entertaining that you could make a movie only with them. Overall, in terms of emotional impact, this was probably the most powerful movie of the year (except for the number 1 movie; see below).

You can read Mary Tobin's full review of Me and Earl and the Dying Girl here.

4. Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Picture
​I really, really wanted this movie to be lower down the list. I was expecting it to easily take the number one spot, but as it turns out that was not meant to be. Don’t get me wrong, The Force Awakens is awesome. The new actors are phenomenal, the nostalgia is off the charts, the practical effects are awesome… pretty much everything about this movie is great. Everything except, that is, for the plot. I know there are a lot of opinions flying around about this topic, but I think the movie is just too similar to A New Hope. It’s a shame really, because with a more daring plot this could have easily been one of the best Star Wars films ever made (and by extension of the best films ever made). I’m still very excited about the upcoming films though, particularly this year’s Rogue One.

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of Star Wars: The Force Awakens here.

3. The Hateful Eight

Picture
I mean, it’s a Tarantino film, so it was inevitable that The Hateful Eight would be among the best of the year. But it was interesting how different it was than his previous fare. It retains the trademark Tarantino style, or course, but it differs in that the violence and absurdism present in the film is just as often played for drama and tragedy as it is for laughs. Plus, this film is such a callback to the spaghetti westerns of days gone by that it feels incredibly distinct from anything else I saw this year. Overall, it’s yet another feather in Tarantino’s (by now) very large and ornate hat.

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Hateful Eight here.

2. The Revenant

Picture
​What struck me most about this movie, both when I initially saw the press screening of it and upon reflection, is the sheer intensity of it. There are few films that are as unrelenting violent and raw as this one. The other thing that’s so impressive about The Revenant was the incredible ordeal of its production. It was filmed in extremely remote and inhospitable locations, often taking hours just to get to where scenes were to be filmed. And the fact that the movie was filmed exclusively with natural light is just amazing. Alejandro González Iñárritu has another incredible work under his belt. 

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Revenant here.

1. Inside Out

Picture
There’s not a whole lot more I can say about Inside Out that I didn’t say about it when I first reviewed it this past summer. But I do want to add a personal note to that. This movie hit me particularly hard as someone who struggles with mental illness. Riley’s struggle with true sadness for the first time in her life is a surprisingly accurate depiction of what living with depression is like. Because of this (and of course every other phenomenal aspect of it that I’ve already discussed), Inside Out resonated with me in a way that few movies do. That is why I it is my favorite film of the year, and honestly probably one of the most emotionally powerful movies I have ever seen. 

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Revenant here.

Honorable Mentions

Leviathan

The Look of Silence


Ex Machina

Wildlike
 
Predestination

CHAPPiE

0 Comments

Carter Sigl on Deadpool

2/12/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (because it’s very relevant to this article): I believe that one of the biggest problems with Hollywood’s current glut of superhero movies is that most of them take themselves far too seriously. As a general rule, superheroes are typically campy and at least somewhat ridiculous, so it’s incredibly difficult for me to take most of them seriously as dramatic characters. Batman as seen in Nolan’s Dark Knight Saga, I can take seriously. Rorscach and Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, I can take seriously. Most of the rest I cannot. That’s why all of the other superhero movies I’ve enjoyed are always the one that don’t take themselves too seriously. Marvel hit the nail on the head with this two years ago with Guardians of the Galaxy, and now 20th Century Fox has done it too with Deadpool.

Our story begins with a former soldier and mercenary named Wade Wilson (That’s me! Hello!), played by Ryan Reynolds (Who’s pretty sexy). He’s mostly retired from a life of violence and now makes his living doing small time jobs like beating up stalkers and bouncing (I know, I used to be so small time). One day, he meets a very attractive woman named Vanessa (played by Morena Baccarin) and falls in love (See? It is a romantic comedy!). But Wade’s life falls apart when he’s diagnosed with late-stage cancer (…so still a romantic comedy). Desperate for a little more time with Vanessa, he accepts an offer from a shady organization which claims they can cure him and make him a superhero (I mean, it seemed like a good idea at the time…). Although they succeed in giving him super healing powers, Wade finds out that they’re trying to make him a super slave (Such pricks, 1 star on Yelp) and escapes. And then the roaring rampage of revenge begins…

Sounds of struggle, shots fired, pools of blood.

Hey kiddies, Deadpool here! Although I could let this guy keep writing about my movie, I thought it would be so much better if I told you about it myself! So like he said in the first paragraph, what makes my movie better than everyone else’s is that I am just so much funnier than all of them. I even got the people making the movie in on it; the credits begin with “Directed by an overpaid tool”, “Starring a hot chick, a British villain, and the sexiest man alive”, and “Written by the writers: the real heroes here”. We only hired and cast the funniest people, because I’m worth it *L’Oreal*. Also, in case you haven’t noticed yet…somehow…I have the ability to break the fourth wall and talk to you lovely viewers whenever I want! Isn’t that just great?!
Picture
Oh yeah, that's right, come to papa...
The other reason I’m better than every other superhero is that I’m not a superhero! In fact, I’m basically a complete and total asshole and sociopath who gets off on killing people in the most violent and entertaining ways possible. But that’s alright, no one cares about that as long as I’m really funny! You sick bastards. But seriously, my movie is really really violent. I mean, why do you think I made some many awesome red band trailers? Those pansy-ass superheroes hardly ever seem to kill anyone, and I never get to see any beautiful blood when I watch their pathetic movies. So if you want to know what people look like on the inside after I murder them, you’ve come to the right place!

So basically, my movie is the best one ever made. Move over Star Wars, step aside Citizen Kane, Deadpool is in town! We won’t even need to have an Academy Awards ceremony this year; they can just FedEx me all the Oscars in the mail! Won’t that be easier for everyone involved?
​
Grade: A (Not A+ asshole?! Now daddy has some anger issues to let out…)
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Zoolander No. 2

2/12/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​I don’t know what people were expecting from this movie. A lot of the critiques I’ve heard stating that the movie was too awkward, immature, or under-developed put me under the impression that some expected some operatic epic. I was under no impression that Zoolander No. 2 would be any less immature or random (and I say that with great affection) than the first and you shouldn’t be, either. This sequel is certainly not the first movie, and doesn’t have the same novelty as the first did, but it also doesn’t pretend to do those things. Zoolander No. 2 is what I hoped it would be: a continuation of the first movie’s storyline, with new challenges for the main characters and acknowledgement of the time that has passed since we last encountered Derek Zoolander, Hansel, and Mugatu.

I’m still relieved that Ben Stiller retained the original cast—even Christine Taylor, whose character (Matilda Jeffries) is dead in the sequel. The additions that are included in Zoolander No. 2, most notably Kristin Wiig and Penelope Cruz, were hysterical but not perfect fits. Wiig’s big laugh was her nearly incomprehensible accent/speech impediment, but it wavered. The joke was inconsistent because at times she would lose the accent, and that came off as an irritating lack of focus. Cruz's character, Valencia, took herself too seriously. Cruz herself acted well, but her character did not have any of the awkward quirks that Zoolander characters typically have. Even Matilda Jeffries was laughable in the first film. Simply put, Valencia was too perfect of a character for the Zoolander movies. She was too suave, too smart, too sexy--her only "flaw" was that her breasts were too large for her to be a runway model. Cruz pulled that joke off well, but it wasn't self-deprecating enough for her character to fit in with the rest of the ensemble.

Otherwise, the humor in this movie was well done. Zoolander No. 2 took buzzwords from popular culture and adapted them to the slapstick sense of humor characterizing the first film. Characters mentioned "farm-to-table" wifi, repurposed human waste, intentionally tasteless tattoos, and hashtags. The film mocks not only fashion, but everything that contemporary society has become (even though the hashtag joke is over-done at this point). I especially enjoyed the ongoing ridicule of the contemporary habit of dismissing everything as uncool or mainstream, even if they like it. 

Of course, Zoolander No. 2 also spends a substantial amount of time poking fun at the fashion industry, but it does so in a different way than the first movie did. Zoolander No. 2 adjusts its quips to fit in with the current state of fashion, pointing out the fickleness of the industry in the process. The movie suggests that the fashion industry is killing itself, and at the end brings in some of the most famous modern fashion designers and mocks them to their faces.

Zoolander No. 2 is a fun movie. There are enough references to the first movie (i.e., the orgy scene) to please fans, but this sequel does not pretend to be the first movie. Expect some great laughs and plenty of satire about popular culture, but don't take it too seriously. It's Zoolander, not Casablanca.
​

Grade: B+
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    AJ Martin
    Andy Robinson
    Anime
    Anthony Formicola
    Anu Gulati
    Arjun Agarwal
    Arzu Martinez
    Ben Garbow
    Brandon Isaacson
    Brian Hamilton
    Carter Sigl
    Dan Simeone
    Discussion
    Elizabeth Johnson Wilson
    Eliza Rosenberry
    Emily Fisler
    Erick Sanchez
    Eric Tatar
    Essays
    Festivals
    Gabrielle Ulubay
    Haley Emerson
    Here's Some Movies
    Ian Wolff
    IFF Boston
    IFFBoston 2015
    Interviews
    Isaac Feldberg
    Kunal Asarsa
    Library
    Lists
    Marguerite Darcy
    Marissa Marchese
    Mary Tobin
    Meghan Murphy
    Mike Muse
    Mitch Macro
    Neel Shah
    Netflix Instant Watch
    Parth Parekh
    Patrick Roos
    Profiles
    Reviews
    Short Films
    Television
    This Week In Movies
    Tyler Rosini

    Want to Write for Us?

    Contact NUFEC President Ian Wolff at nufecblog@gmail.com if you're interested in writing for this blog!

    Archives

    April 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.